Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

[sprjus4]

Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?

I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.

[tolbs17]

Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?

I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.

Unless it's to Washington... maybe a 2-d can be signed. I was honestly saying that if I-46 was used instead of I-87 then it would make more sense.

If you look at I-195 in New Jersey, they are east-west.
Example

[X99]

EDIT #2 - Surprisingly got a response, they said they will get back with an answer tomorrow after "research".

If only SDDOT did that... I could show them some of my somewhat realistic Fictional Highways plans and know that someone in the right place actually took notice.

[The Ghostbuster]

I agree Interstate 587 should be signed east-west. The only rational for signing 587 north-south is if the route were to replace Interstate 795 in its entirety (which, of course, is not planned).

[Finrod]

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.

[tolbs17]

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.

Ye, but it looks retarded honestly. It's not the same when going from I-95 in New Jersey to I-195.

[LM117]

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.

Yet another reason it makes no sense.

[sprjus4]

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.

https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406

Somebody needs to do some further research. That's not how it works with 3d routes. Look at I-464 and I-664 in Hampton Roads for example. Both north-south routes and signed as such despite I-64 being east-west.

Looking closer, North Carolina doesn't have any 3d routes that change directions from its parent.

I-140 - East-West
I-240 - East-West
I-440 - East-West
I-540 - East-West
I-840 - East-West
I-277 - North-South
I-285 - North-South
I-795 - North-South
I-295 - North-South
I-785 - North-South
I-485 - Outer / Inner

It might be a standard procedure, but this is DEFINITELY a route that should be east-west, similar to how I-464 and I-664 are north-south despite I-64 being east-west. It would make no sense if those routes were east-west as they're clearly north-south routes, I-664 even joining with I-64 to create a circumferential beltway around the Hampton Roads metropolitan area.

[bob7374]

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.

https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406

It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter. About 10 years ago, when the Boston newspapers actually had transportation beat writers and weekly columns, a reader wrote in regarding why Route 3 is a US route north of Boston but a state route to the south (what roadgeek hasn't asked this question?). The writer passed it along to a Mass Highway official he knew. The response was that since the route north of Boston crosses the state line into New Hampshire it needs a US shield, but because the route to the south of Boston is all in Mass. it's given a state route shield. Huh?

[sprjus4]

Here was my response. I'm not expecting much from a Twitter rep, but I plan on directly contacting NCDOT regarding this issue especially once the state applies to get the interstate highway actually sign posted once upgrades to I-95 are completed, if they. As seen in my response, the signage as east-west is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.

https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995799216963584
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995808020795395
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995815151120386
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1201995822667304961

[tolbs17]

This is stupid! Is it because of NCiDiOT or whatever they think is the best? I think NCDOT needs to resign I-87 as I-44 (the original plan) or I-46 if they can't do simple things of just making I-587 an east-west route.

[LM117]

What a crock of shit. There are plenty of examples of 2d N/S interstates having spurs signed E/W. The I-195 spurs in Maryland, NJ, and Maine are perfect examples.

As seen in my response, the signage as east-west north-south is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.

FTFY.

[LM117]

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.

https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1201971710989414406

It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter.

Hell, the guy from NCDOT that replied to me last month regarding the Goldsboro Bypass was obviously unaware that FHWA has already approved signing it as I-42.

[tolbs17]

It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".

[Roadsguy]

It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".

At least that had some logic behind it, as I-495 only linked Raleigh to I-95 and served as a designation for north-south traffic to follow. I don't know if what NCDOT's Twitter reply was talking about applies to all 3di's or just spurs, but if the former, I may now retroactively hate the logic for I-495's directionality too...

[Traffic]

NCDOT is under the impression that AASHTO requires ALL odd numbered interstates N-S and ALL even interstates E-W, regardless of whether it is 2 digit or 3 digit.  This is what I was told when asked why I-495 was N/S, even though it was concurrent with US 64 (E/W) between Raleigh and Rocky Mount.  This is wrong, as only (1 and ) 2 digit interstates are required to follow this format.  There is no standard convention for 3 digit interstates, as it is left up to judgement based on the purpose of the route.

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.   This designation is in line with other routes on the East Coast which are diagonal.  Even numbers (26 and 16) go NW-SE, while odd numbers such as 81 and 85 are more SW-NE.  Even the proposed I-42 goes NW-SE.  Based on the SW-NE angle, 87 as N/S route was better than an even number, but given it's shorter length I don't know that it really mattered.

The fact is there is no rule that says 587 has to be N/S, especially backwards as proposed.  Loops are always hard, as they may change directions multiple times (such as I-495 around DC, I-695 around Baltimore, or I-610 around Houston), but spurs do not loop and generally go from point A to B so they are more directional.  They should be signed based on their direction, not a "rule" based on their number.  Their number is based on their parent and has nothing to do with the direction of the highway.  Here are some examples to prove this theory:

I-190, I-390, I-590, and I-990 in NY are N/S
I-476 in PA is N/S
I-195 in NJ is E/W
I-270 in MD is N/S
I-595 in FL is E/W
I-710 in CA is N/S

[LM117]

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson.

[sprjus4]

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson.

Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.

[sparker]

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson.

Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.

The whole 2016 process whereby I-87 was selected reads like a Monty Python sketch where no party was on the same page as the others (and likely exacerbated by an open bar at SCOURN's spring '16 meeting in Des Moines).   The obvious choice for a number for this corridor was an even number in the available "pool", adjusted for the US highways within NC and VA, which would have left 46, 54, and 56.  But NCDOT doesn't duplicate routes, so they would have had to renumber whatever state route replicated the choice -- and they pissed & moaned about the political fallout stemming from folks having to change addresses along those routes, so they came up with I-89, reasoning that I-85 west of there had a sizeable E-W section as well, and NC 89 was far enough away from the proposed corridor that they could fudge the duplication aspect.  But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.  Now -- if that rationale was reasonably applied, the even numbers should have been reconsidered and one selected -- but, as the late John Belushi might have said, noooooooooooo!  They rubber-stamped the odd-number concept but changed it to 87 for both the reasons cited above -- but also as a "commemoration" for historical events that occurred in years ending in "87" (the founding of a regional college, etc.). 

This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved;  NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS.  But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation.  They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!

[sprjus4]

This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved;  NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS.  But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation.  They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!

Agreed. As I've pointed out before, while the I-87 corridor is generally more east-west orientated, north-south is also somewhat reasonable. One way to look at it is going Raleigh <-> Norfolk, you either go SOUTH into North Carolina, or NORTH into Virginia. Being in Hampton Roads, I've always considered Raleigh to be -south-, less so -west-, though on a map it is geographically west.

But I-587 makes no sense. It's a due east-west routing, and Greenville and Raleigh are due west of each other. Not only is the number stupid, it makes no sense. Am I going north or going south when going east/west?
   

[vdeane]

But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.

If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.

[tolbs17]

Ok, so I-587 was proposed and not I-187 because NCDOT wants to copy New York and their messed up I-587 which isn't really a freeway?

[sparker]

But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.

If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.

Which should have been a relocated I-480, since that designation was deleted back in 1965 and available for reuse.  The CA 480 Embarcadero freeway, still standing when the I-238 designation was approved back in 1984, could easily have been renumbered -- no one in S.F. gives a shit about such arcane details. 

[tolbs17]

Extend I-87 to Rockingham or even Camden SC! Maybe they will realize that I-587 would need to be changed to an east-west route.  Has anyone heard from NCDOT about them changing I-587 to East-West or no?

Also, that's probably a non-starter because of NC 87, and that number would have to be changed I think.

[ozarkman417]

Is this I-587 shield on Google Maps new or has it been here a while and I'm just now noticing? Browsing the corridor, this is the only I-587 shield I have found.